Selected quad for the lemma: son_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
son_n	husband_n	sister_n	wife_n	31,415	5	10.2119	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61561	The Jesuits loyalty, manifested in three several treatises lately written by them against the oath of allegeance with a preface shewing the pernicious consequence of their principles as to civil government.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1677 (1677)	Wing S5599; ESTC R232544	134,519	200

Kings but onely that it is not a good Reason to prove that the Pope cannot depose Kings in any case whatsoever because a meer Spirituall Power can in no case possible extend it self to Temporalls 105. Another Reason very common among those who defend the Oath and deny the Pope's Deposing power is Because neither the Unlawfulness of the Oath nor the Pope's Power to depose Kings is any Article of Divine Faith Whence they infer that one may lawfully take the Oath and by consequence swear positively that the Pope has no such Power Now let any one judge whether this consequence be not manifestly null Such a thing is no Article of Faith Therefore we may lawfully swear the contrary It is no Article of Divine Faith that His Majesty is King of Great Britanny shall we therefore swear that He is not It is no Article of Faith that the Pope is Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome and yet neither Protestant nor Catholick will swear that he is not The reason is because a thing may be certain though no Article of Faith or at least doubtfull and one cannot lawfully swear what is false or doubtfull 106. And as for our present case Those who defend the Pope's Power to depose Kings in some cases do not unanimously affirm that it is an Article of Faith or that it is expresly defined as such by any Generall Council or by the universall Consent of the Church but some of them endeavour to prove it out of Scripture as a meer Theologicall Truth others deduce it from Prescription others from a Donation or Agreement made between Catholick Princes alledging to this purpose that famous Canonicall Constitution of the Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third assented unto by the Embassadours and Plenipotentiaries of all or most Catholick Princes of those times present at the Councill 107. At least it does not seem impossible that Catholick Princes out of hatred to Heresie and zeal for the conservation of the Catholick Religion should make a League among themselves that if any of them should become an Heretick and should be declared as such by the Pope to whom as all Catholicks confess belongs the Authority of Declaring one an Heretick it should be lawfull for the rest in that case to attacque the Transgressour and force him by their Arms to recant and in case of refusall to prosecute the War till they have Deposed him and Absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance And what is agreed upon so by the common Consent of Princes cannot be recalled but by their common Consent This case I say does not seem impossible Now the Pope in that case by declaring such a Prince an Heretick does as it were authorize the rest of the Allies to attacque him and in case he refuses to recant to Depose him though he is not then so properly Deposed by force of the Pope's Declaration as of the Contract made between those Princes Suppose that some zealous Protestant should entail his Estate upon his heirs with this Condition That if any of them should quit the Protestant Religion and should be declared by the Archbishop of Canterbury whom Protestants acknowledge here in England as their Primate to have quitted Protestancy his inheritance should pass to the next heir Now if the Archbishop should declare in this case that such an one who possest that Estate had quitted the Protestant Religion he would deprive him or rather declare him deprived of his Estate though the Archbishop has no Authority in rigour to deprive any man of his Estate And in this case such a man would be deprived of his Estate rather by force of the Entailment then of the Archbishop's Declaration 108. Finally Protestants do commonly confess to return to the main Point that the Points wherein they differ from us as No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No Invocation of Saints and such like Negatives are no Articles of Faith and yet they are far from positively swearing the contrary Whence I conclude that the forementioned Reason of these Authours is manifestly false For it runs thus Whensoever any thing is no Article of Faith the contrary may positively be sworn But the Pope's Power to depose Kings is no Article of Faith Therefore we may positively swear that he has no such Power The Major Proposition is manifestly false as has been shewn 109. Another main Argument which the Defenders of the Oath make a great account of in order to deny the Pope's Deposing power is That our Saviour did not come into the World to deprive other men of their Temporal Dominions Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and much less to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat coelestia Hence they infer that the Pope has no such Power for his Power must be immediately derived from Christ whose Vicar he is To this Argument I answer First That it is manifestly false that the Authority of Christ and his Apostles did not extend it self in some cases to the Deprivation of Temporals as has been proved Secondly That the Pope and other Bishops have the Temporal Sovereignty of several places granted unto them by Temporal Princes or otherwise acquired though neither our Saviour nor his Apostles had any such Sovereignty Wherefore this Consequence is null Christ had no such power Therefore the Pope has it not and yet in the Oath we are bound to swear that the Pope has not any Power whatsoever to depose Princes derived from Christ or any body else Thirdly That out of those words of the Scripture and the Hymn of the Church is not proved that our Saviour had no Authority in some extraordinary case to deprive Kings of their Dominions Certain it is that God has not given me this life to kill my neighbour yet in some extravagant case when I cannot otherwise defend my own life I may lawfully kill him 'T is also certain that His Majesty was not made King of England to take away from other Princes their Dominions yet He may doe it if otherwise He cannot defend His Subjects Neither did Christ come to damn any one out of his primary intention but to save all as is evident from several places of Scripture and yet he does and may justly condemn men who will be obstinate to eternal punishments In like manner his primary design in coming into the world was not to separate a man from his Wife a Son from his Father or Brother from his Sister for he commands all especially Relations to keep union and due correspondence among themselves and yet 't is said of him in Scripture Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but division and to make a separation between man and Wife Father and Son Brother and Sister when the Communication with them is destructive to their Salvation and yet 't is certain that Subjects are not more expresly commanded in Scripture to honour their

Sovereigns then Children are commanded to honour their Parents and Wives to obey their Husbands 110. If our Adversaries object That the cases alledged by us here and above to prove that Christ and his Apostles did sometimes exercise their Power over Temporals or deprive others of some Temporal thing did proceed not from an ordinary but an extraordinary Power and by consequence hence cannot be inferred that the Pope has any such Power since he succeeds Christ and his Apostles in their ordinary Jurisdiction onely To this I answer That all the cases at least alledged by us are not such For the Power to deprive one by Excommunication of all Civil conversation and to separate a man from his Wife in certain cases is inherent in the Pope according to his ordinary Jurisdiction That the forementioned Instances do shew that though Christ's Power upon earth was meerly Spiritual and his Kingdom was not of this World yet he exercised sometimes his Power over Temporals which was the main intent for which I alledged those Precedents of Christ and his Apostles Finally That it is a very extraordinary case for Popes to Depose Kings and even which is much less to Excommunicate them and those who derive the Pope's Deposing power from Christ affirm that he has received that Power onely for some extraordinary and extravagant cases 111. And here I cannot but reflect upon these Authours who impugn the forementioned Power in the Pope They require their Adversaries to shew out of Scripture the King-dethroning Power if they cannot shew it thence then they triumph and conclude that the Pope has no such Power though that inference be null as we have insinuated If they produce out of Scripture several Instances to prove that Christ's and his Apostles Power did extend it self sometimes to Temporals then they answer that such cases were extraordinary and consequently that they ought not to be brought as proofs of any such Power in the Pope So that though Christ had exercised never so great Temporal Power and had Deposed more Kings then ever Popes did depose or pretend to depose they might with the same Answer put them all off saying that they were extraordinary cases and proceeded from an extraordinary Jurisdiction 112. There follows another Reason of great value among the Impugners of the Pope's Power to depose Kings and it is That there cannot be found in all Antiquity till Gregory the VII his time one precedent for any such Power in the Pope whereas Christians were persecuted as much by Pagan Emperours as they are or have been persecuted by Heretical Princes Neither had the ancient Christians less courage or zeal for their Religion and the conservation thereof then the modern But whatever the opinion of the Pope's Power to depose Kings be this Reason is not solid First Because those who ground the forementioned Power upon Prescription or an Agreement made between Princes can easily answer that in time of the Pagan Emperours there was no such Prescription or Agreement made and consequently that it is no wonder if in their time no such Power was exercised Secondly Because since the Deposition was to be put in execution by the help of some Christian Prince there was not for a long time any Christian Prince at all or any one so powerfull that could put it in execution and consequently the Pope's Sentence if he had issued forth any against a Pagan Emperour would upon this account have been insignificant neither would the Pagan Subjects have taken notice of it and the Christian Subjects were many times so inconsiderable that had they taken notice of it or not it would have been of little concern 113. Thirdly Because 't is no good Argument Such a Power was not exercised till such a time Therefore there was no such Power till such a time The existency of one onely Act does necessarily infer the existency of a Power for it but the denial of several yea of all Acts appertaining to such a Power though for some long time does not necessarily infer the denial of such a Power For a Power especially to extraordinary cases may lie dormant for a long time The Power to Excommunicate Princes nominatim is certainly derived from Christ and yet we find very few Precedents in ancient times of any such Excommunication And some have reflected very well as above we hinted that there is not one Instance of an Heretical Prince who was alwaies brought up in Heresy Excommunicated nominatim and yet even those who deny the Pope any Power to depose Kings affirm that he may Excommunicate nominatim such Princes 114. Fourthly I do not remember to have read that either Iulian the Apostata or any of the Arrian Kings were speciatim Excommunicated and yet sure there was a Power to Excommunicate them yea and they deserved it too Why therefore do these Authours infer that because several Kings who persecuted the Church were not Deposed there was no Power to depose them Such a thing was not done Therefore it might not lawfully have been done is no good Consequence There was no General Council held in the Church for many hundred years after Christ till the First General Council which was that of Nice though there were several Heresies and many zealous Popes in those times shall we therefore conclude that the Popes had no Authority to call a General Council derived from Christ or shall we alledge the continuance of three hundred years without a General Council to prove that there is no Power in the Pope to call such a Council And if a Power could lie dormant by reason of certain Circumstances for three hundred years why not for some years more So that because the Popes did not exercise for many hundred years a Power to depose Kings it does not follow that they were not invested with any such Power 115. I close up this Point with another Reason which is That the Impugners of the Pope's Deposing power cannot understand as they will needs persuade us what difference can be between a direct Power and an indirect Power and since they are convinced that the Pope has no direct Power to depose Princes as even Bellarmine confesses they infer that he neither has an indirect Power to doe it For what matters it say they to make the mischief the less whether one's eyes be beaten out by a direct stroke from a Tennis-ball or by a Bricol In answer to this Difficulty No body denies but that if a Prince be really Deposed the effect is the same whether he was Deposed by a direct or indirect Power and this is all the instance they bring does amount to For certainly 't is harder more extraordinary and more skill is required to strike a set mark by Bricol then by a direct stroke of a Tennis-ball and were one to stand the one or the other stroke sure he would rather stand a Bricol then a direct stroke Moreover there is a vast difference between a direct and